Branding transportation as a public health service


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Branding transportation as a public health service

  1. 1. Branding Transportation as a Public Health Service PRESENTED BY: CHPPD TRANSPORTATION WORK GROUP 1 3 9 th A n n u a l A P H A C o n f e r e n c e Washington DC November 1, 2011
  2. 2. The Transportation-Public Health Link A Trans-disciplinary Approach Karyn M. Warsow, MS, MPH DrPH Candidate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Health Policy Management and Leadership Stephen F. Mayer, PhD, PE Parsons Corporation Business Development Manager Transportation Strategy Leader No relationships to disclose
  3. 3. Transportation & Public Health WHERE’S THE DISCONNECT?
  4. 4. APHA 10 Policy Statements Encouraging transportation and land-use planning policies, such as a complete streets policy, that support healthy communities. Establishing performance measures to promote safe, affordable and equitable public transit and alternative modes of transportation such as walking and cycling. Using health impact assessments to inform and guide transportation policy, projects and planning. Fostering the participation of local communities and underserved populations in all stages of the transportation planning and development process. Expanding the funding of community-based transportation programs and services that promote health and provide access to healthy food and water, affordable housing, employment, schools, health care and recreation. Funding programs that expand transportation options for disadvantaged or disabled populations, and that promote safe, convenient transportation options for children and seniors. Designing and constructing multi-modal transportation systems within each state and metropolitan area to meet the needs of users of all ages and abilities, including those in rural areas. Collecting data and funding research to evaluate how transportation and planning policies affect public health and health equity. Supporting reductions in transportation-related emissions and greenhouse gases. Increasing vehicle, motorist, passenger, cyclist and pedestrian safety.
  5. 5. Transportation Overview Based on a military culture  Security  Mobility  Economic sustainability Services viewed as a “utility” USDOT Mantra: Do MORE with less  Adopting a business model  Integrated Fiscal & Strategic Management Approach  Performance metrics  Financial accountability  Public constituency now viewed as a customer/stakeholder  Multi-modal integration (urban and rural)  Sustainability of the Built Environment
  6. 6. Market Perspective of Transportation Total Market Revenue (top 25 companies) in support of transportation infrastructure in the Top 10 States decreased from $476B (2008) to $470B(2010) representing a decrease of 1.16% State budgets are strained and priorities are largely focused on maintenance activities as opposed to new construction Transportation officials are actively exploring alternative project delivery and financing approaches to build new projects
  7. 7.  SAFETEA-LU (federal surfaceReauthorization transportation)Chairman Mica  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 8th extension of  Transportation Infrastructure Bank SAFETEA-LU  Public-Private Partnerships (P3) 6-year plan proposed  Tolling as a financing source $35 billion per year (amount generated by the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax) Long-term planning creates permanent jobs Raises federal capitation spending on partnership projects
  8. 8. Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) Reduced Stormwater Reduced Transport Runoff Higher Density / Air Emissions Higher Efficiency Transportation Time Savings / Reliability Increased Transportation Transportation Safety Cost Savings Economic Development Reduced Benefits O&M Costs Public Transport Expenditures Option Value Courtesy of Eric Bill, MBA Senior Economist, HDR Decision Economics,
  9. 9. Advantage of Non-Cash Benefits : The PublicHealth Twist Courtesy of Eric Bill, MBA Senior Economist, HDR Decision Economics,
  10. 10. Defining the LinkContext Sensitive Public HealthSolutions (DOT Project Basis)“Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a “Public Healthcollaborative, interdisciplinary (multi/interdisciplinary) is theapproach that involves all stakeholders science of protecting and improving thein providing a transportation facility that health of communities throughfits its setting. It is an approach that leads education, promotion of healthy lifestyles,to preserving and enhancing scenic, and research on disease and injuryaesthetic, historic, community, and prevention.” By analyzing the effect ofenvironmental resources, while genetics, personal choice and theimproving or maintaining safety, environment on health, programs canmobility, and infrastructure conditions.” be developed that prevent and/or halt the re-occurrence of illness and injury. TheseResults of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context programs are based on the developmentSensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process and implementation of educationalSummary Report, March 2007 initiative, policies, services, regulating systems and the results of scientific research (stakeholders).” Source:
  11. 11. Health Impact Assessment: Where does it fit? No such thing as “one size fits all”  Transportation infrastructure projects are multilevel and multi- dimensional just like human health  Integrative approach using multiple measures and/or models Build on existing transportation network systems  Increases buy-in by transportation professionals  Decreases economic burden to the transportation system as compared to a new public health initiative  Encourages public health professionals as part of the team to educate and guide the process SROI expansion Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) expansion Environmental Review (ER)/NEPA  Define and identify applicable projects: bike/pedestrian (walkable communities) vs. trade corridor
  12. 12. Community Health Planning and PolicyDevelopment (CHPPD) CHPPD Transportation Work Group  Indentified survey topic area of interest  Identified a gap in APHA service reach: transportation infrastructure professionals  Trans-disciplinary approach: public health and transportation  Non-APHA member partners  Philosophy: Respect for individual perspective  Experience  Professional background  Culture
  13. 13. Transportation Work Group: Core Team Karyn M. Warsow, MS, MPH DrPH Candidate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy Management and Leadership Previous Parsons Corporate Strategy Intern APHA Section of CHPPD, TWG Chair Anthony Delucia, PhD East Tennessee State University, Department of Surgery APHA Section of Environment, TWG Vice Chair Ijeoma Nwachuku, PhD APHA Section of CHPPD Stephen F. Mayer, PhD, PE Parsons Corporation, Business Development Manager (Tolling /Innovation) & Transportation Strategy Leader Assistant Professor of Strategic Management and Technology Transfer, Niagara University Robert O. Felt IV Communications Specialist Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Neil Gray Director of Governmental Affairs International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA)
  14. 14. Brief Overview The Transportation-Public Health Link (T-PH Link)  Based on a conceptual process that considers the synergistic association of factors affecting the health of communities:  Sociopolitical  Economic  Environmental  Analysis of performance metrics assigned to a particular facility  Multi-dimensional integrative problem solving approach accounting for the individual determinants acting at different levels of the transportation system  Evidence-based trans-disciplinary research approach  Maintaining flexibility in perspective  Information sharing based on lessons learned  Linking of issues to improve best practices, policy and community
  15. 15. Objective and Expected Outcomes Objective  Eliminate cross-discipline miscommunication between public health and transportation professionals by using a practical model to facilitate the exchange of information required to improve community planning and policy development. Expected Outcomes  Improve open mutual communication to facilitate the exchange of information through active listening with understanding.  Encourage partnerships between public health and transportation professionals that result in the development of innovative transportation strategies by merging ideas that improve the health of communities.
  16. 16. Graphic Source:
  17. 17. Marketing & Social Networking Interpersonal Communications  Transportation-related meetings (regional traffic safety, TRB, IBTTA legislative conference, CHPPD…and anyone who will listen!) Conference presentations  Michigan Public Health Association 2011  APHA 2011  Research Innovation Technology Administration (RITA): November 2012 abstract submission CHPPD Web-Paint Facebook Linkedin Proposed Website
  18. 18. Pilot Survey Sample population N=18 Questions and top three responses  What is public Health?  Overall (good, wellbeing, broad health): 10  Medical care: 2  Collective/population health: 1  What is the link between transportation and public health?  Impact wellness: 6  Access to medical care: 4  Safety: 4  What are issues that influence transportation decision and policy making?  Funding: 9  Opinion/Advocacy: 5  Demand/congestion: 5
  19. 19. Research Initiative Harris Interactive  Qualitative Interviews  200 Contacts: transportation infrastructure professionals  50 completed surveys  Quantitative Survey  Based on qualitative survey results  Nationally disseminated  Seeking cause-effect marketing corporate partner  Survey Results may lead to:  Manuscript(s)  Policy implications
  20. 20. What is Branding? Source:
  21. 21. The Concept of Branding Branding transportation as a public health service will help to eliminate the cross-discipline miscommunication between public health and transportation professionals through the sharing of information needed to improve community planning and policy development. A partnership between transportation and public health has the potential to facilitate innovative solutions to the challenges faced by transportation with the merging of ideas based on lessons learned by public health professionals in the field. Labeling of transportation as a public health service sends a positive image to the public as opposed to transportation being viewed as a utility. Who really wants to pay a utility bill? Transportation as a value added service to meet a demand in the marketplace is more apt to receive public support and a willingness to pay when the trade-off is improved quality of life.
  22. 22. Policy Implications Support a cultural shift in transportation infrastructure project planning and development as reflective of a systematic evidence-based research driven by an integrated fiscal and strategic management business approach with health as an integrated component of decision-making. Encourage the combined use and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data to make informed strategic decisions. Include trained public health professionals as part of the transportation infrastructure planning and development team to facilitate open mutual communication between the disciplines and the public constituency. Brand transportation as a public health service to facilitate an exchange of information and ideas and to facilitate public buy-in.